1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO . 09
- 12
- 00 409
- CV

____________________
IN RE COMMITMENT OF JOSE OVALLE

______________________________________________________ _ On A ppeal from the 435th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No . 03
- 06
- 04437 CV

________________________________________ _______________ _ MEMORANDUM OPINION
In November 2003 , the trial court rendered a final judgment and an order civilly committing Jose Ovalle for outpatient treatment and supervision pursuant to the sexually violent predator statute

. See Tex. Healt h & Safety Code Ann. §§
841.001

- .151 (West 2010 & Supp. 2012). The order required Ovalle to reside in
Harris County, Texas. O n July 2 6, 2012, in response to a motion to modify filed by the Office of Violent Sex Offender Management ( “ OVSOM ” ) , t he trial court modified the judgment and civil commitment order to require that Ovalle reside in a Texas residential facility under contract with OVSOM or at another loca tion or2 facility approved by OVSOM. Ovalle is one of several persons affected by similar orders signed by the trial court on July 26. Ovalle asserts four appellate issues challenging t he modification order. Because the o rder is not appealable and mandamus relief is not warranted , w e dismi ss Ovalle ’s appeal.
T he trial court’s July 26 order modified a requirement of Ovalle ’s SVP treatment witho ut finally di sposing of the commitment case and no interlocutory appeal is statutorily authorized ; thus, Ovalle ’s notice of appeal fails to invoke our appellate jurisdiction

. See In re Commitment of Cortez , No. 09

- 12

- 00385

- CV,

___ S.W.3d ___, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 7854 , at * *5

- 6 (Tex. App.

— Beaumont June 27, 2013, no pet. h.) (not yet release d for publication)

. Ovalle asks that we alternatively consider his brief as a request for mandamus relief. For the reasons stated i n Cortez , we will address Ovalle ’s issues as a manda mus petition. See id. at **6

- 8.
In issues one and two , Ovalle complains of the trial court’s modification procedures on grounds that Ovalle’s counsel was not allowed to make objections during the proceedings, Ovalle was not allowed to meet with counsel, Ovalle was not allowed to testify or present evidence, the trial court considered the motion to modify and objections on submission, and the State must serve “ an accurate, complete, and signed” pleading upon both the person whose commitment order the3 State seeks to modify and the person’s counsel

. In Cortez , we explained that t he trial court may modi fy SVP commitment requirements “‘ at any time after notice to each affected party to the proceedings and a hearing.’” Id. at *8 (quoting Tex. Health & Safet y Code Ann. § 841.082(e) (West Supp. 2012 ) )

. Ovalle received notice through counsel , appeared before the trial court after filing written objections to O VSOM ’s motion to modify , and personally appeared in court when the trial court modified the civil commitment order

. See i d

. at **8

- 10. Moreover, b ecause of the limit ed administrative purpose of modification to conform to changes made by the Legislature, t he opportunity to be heard through written
submission alone d oes not violate the SVP statute or due process. Id

. at *11. Ovalle has not shown what his unaddressed objections would have been, or that a contemporaneous objection was necessary to preserve error. See i d

. at *13. In issue three, Ovalle argues that the modification procedure force s civilly committed persons to reside in locked residential facilities where conditions are punitive, in violation of due process. A long with numerous other civilly committed
persons, Ovalle disavowed a constitutional challenge to the statute in the trial
court

. See id. The trial court’s July 26 order did not alter Ovalle ’s status to a more restrictive custody. See id

.4 In issue four, Ovalle contends that he was civilly committed before section 841.082(a )(1)’s enactment date

. Section 841.082(a)(1) of the SVP statute provides that a civil commitment order must require the person to reside in a Texas residential facility under contract with OVSOM or at another location or facility approved by OVSOM . Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.082(a)(1) (West Supp. 2012)

. Th e provision ’s effective date is September 1, 2005. See Act of May 23, 2005, 79th Leg., R.S., ch. 849, § 9, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 2890, 2893. As we explained in Cortez , “ the 1999 SVP statute permitted the trial court to order a committed person to reside in a particular place and allowed the commitment requirements to be modified.” Cortez, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 7854,
at *16; see Act of May 30, 1999, 76th Leg., R.S., ch. 1188 , § 4.01, sec. 841.0 82(a), 1999 Tex. Gen. Laws 4147 (amended 2003, 2005, 2007, 2011) (current version at Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.082(a) (West Supp. 2012)). The 2003
statute likewise gave the trial court the authority to mod ify commitment requirements. Cortez , 201 3 Tex. App. LEXIS 7854, at ** 15

- 16; see Act of May 30, 2003, 78th Leg., R.S., ch. 347 , § § 24, 32, sec. 841.082(b), 2003 Tex. Gen.
Laws 1505, 1517 , 1519 (amended 2005, 2007, 2011) (current version at Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.082 (e) (West Supp. 2012)). Thus, under t he law in effect for pre

- existing orders , the trial court had the discretion to modify the5 residency requirement to accomplish what the 2005 amendment to the SVP statute required

. Cortez , 2013 T ex. App. LEXIS 7854, at *16; see Act of May 23, 2005, 79th Leg., R.S., ch. 849 , § 3, sec. 841.082(a)(1), 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 2890, 2891 (amended 2007, 2011) (current version at Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.082(a)(1) (West Supp. 2012))

. T he trial court could in its discretion order Ovalle to live in a n OVSOM

- approved facility and did not abuse its discretion by doing so

. See Cortez , 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 7854, at * * 16

- 17

. Because w e lack
app ellate jurisdiction, and Ovalle ’ s complaints do not warrant mandamus relief , we dismiss Ovalle ’s appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED.

________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice

Submitted on July 10, 2013 Opinion Delivered August 15, 2013 Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton , JJ.